Loading...
PC Reso 1611 25-TM-76 RESOLUTION NO. 1611 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ® RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 1.39 ACRES INTO TWO PARCELS. APPLICANT: Denny's Architectural Services ADDRESS: 16420 Valley View Ave. , La Mirada, California 90637 SUBMITTED: October 13, 1976 LOCATION: Northwest corner of the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd. and Blaney Ave. ACREAGE: 1.39 acres FURTHER FINDINGS: None 9 411 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of November, 1976, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blaine, Gatto, Koenitzer, Chairman Adams NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None APPROVED: /s/ Victor J, Adams Victor J. Adams, Chairman Planning Commission ATTEST: James H. Sisk 111 Planning Director -2- CITY OF CUPERTINO 111 City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: (408) 252-4505 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE DENIAL.OF A TENTATIVE MAP WHEREAS, the attached application has been submitted to the City of Cupertino requesting approval of a tentative map; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered and heard all evidence submitted in regard to said application; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the subdivision and procedural ordinances of the City of Cupertino. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Commission makes the following findings: aZ That the proposed map is inconsistent with the general and specific • plans. b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the general and specific plans. c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large; for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.